Wells points out, however, that the mutation ... occurs midway through development, after the embryo is already a shrimp. "The mutation does not transform the embryo into anything like an insect, but only into a disabled shrimp. Whatever produced the first insect would have had to transform the embryo from the very beginning."
Huuuhhh??? Lots of traits that are genetically programmed only show up in later development of the organism - like a brain for instance.
Wells adds that critics of Darwinism have never claimed that major mutations result in dead animals, but only in animals that are less fit, and thus likely to be eliminated by natural selection. According to Wells, "this report does nothing to refute that criticism."
The creationists constantly shift the grounds of debate and what is to be demonstrated - and always away from the point that has just been demonstrated to some other point that was not, in the paper at hand an issue. Furthermore this is question begging of the worst kind - the assumption that mutations can only result in animals being less fit - not more fit. But this is patent nonsense. Mutations can produce say, an animal that is more hairy from one that is less hairy as well as as well one that is less hairy rather than more hairy. There is no standard as to whether the animal is less fit, or more fit except to the extent that it must survive in a climate that is warmer or colder than that preferred by its progenitor. The animal that has to survive the artic with the thicker coat will be the happier for it despite the taunts and jeers of the creationists about his unfit deviancy from his god-ordained perfectionist state.